Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add flonat/flonat-research --skill proof-readabilitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/flonat/flonat-researchWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/flonat/flonat-research/proof-readability)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/flonat/flonat-research/proof-readability"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/flonat/flonat-research/proof-readability/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/flonat/flonat-research/proof-readability"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/flonat/flonat-research/proof-readability.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium analysis-evasion · line 1 Suspicious Unicode normalization or mixed-script contentFix: Review the flagged content for security risks. Ensure no credentials, secrets, or sensitive data are exposed.
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00050 | $0.06429 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.03214 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01286 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00643 |
Grade A, and why
proof-readability scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 191 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Author: Moran Koren, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev ([email protected]). Part of the Theorist Toolbox.
Proof readability
Relationship to
proofread:proofreadis a report-only, whole-paper prose checker (11 categories, never edits source).proof-readabilityedits in place, is proof-specific, runs only after a correctness gate, and holds a content-preservation invariantproofreaddoes not. Audit a whole paper's prose →proofread; edit the exposition of a verified proof →proof-readability.
Edit verified proofs so a reader can follow them without reconstructing steps, chasing broken references, or decoding notation. This skill runs after a proof has been written (e.g., by math-proof) and after its correctness has been verified (by domain-reviewer, lean-check, or the user). It is an exposition pass, not a proving pass.
Position in the pipeline
math-proof → verification (domain-reviewer / lean-check / user) → proof-readability
(correctness) (acceptance) (exposition only)
The prime invariant: never change the mathematics. Every edit must be content-preserving — reorder, signpost, expand, annotate, rename consistently, fix references and typos. Do not strengthen, weaken, or "simplify" any claim; do not replace an argument with a different one; do not silently fill what you believe is a gap with new mathematics.
If you find an actual gap or error while editing, stop editing that proof and flag it. Report the suspect step precisely ("the inequality in Eq. (3) silently uses FOSD via Eq. (1); I cannot verify it from the stated assumptions") and route it back to the user (re-open the proof via math-proof, or verify the step via verify-math). A readability pass that quietly patches math defeats the verification that already happened.
Guiding principles
- Minimize the reader's work (Lee): every edit is judged by whether it reduces what the reader must reconstruct, look up, or hold in memory.
- Readers are human (Hwang): "We get tired, we forget, we skim when we should scan. Write accordingly." Judicious redundancy is expository error-correction, not padding; "mathematical prose should not be an access barrier a reader must overcome to prove their worthiness."
- The detail criterion (Lee): omit a step only if it would be obvious to this audience how to fill it in; if it wasn't obvious to the writer at first, something needs to be said. Aim for "just enough to give the reader the Aha! experience that makes the rest obvious."
- Be accurate even when imprecise (Hwang): informal glosses and intuition sentences must be literally defensible, not merely morally true.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 191 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A ff867d5c071a
proof-readability is a skill published in the GitHub repository flonat/flonat-research (132 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 6,429 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
latex-compile
Compile a LaTeX document and fix every error plus aesthetic issue (overfull/underfull boxes, widows, alignment, fonts) for a clean PDF and log. Use this instead of running pdflatex/latexmk manually — it avoids the latexmk stale-log trap and silent grep failures on binary log output, and it reformats rather than…
nb-to-wolfbook
Convert Mathematica .nb or .m files to Wolfbook .wb format so they open and run in VS Code. Use when bringing existing .nb/.m files into Wolfbook, or to make an existing .wb bridge-safe.
sync-wb-nb
Propagate a change made in a Wolfbook .wb notebook into the paired .nb notebook so the two stay identical. Use immediately after every .wb edit.
wolfram-headless
Run heavy Wolfram Language (wolframscript) computations from Claude Code reliably, and diagnose the misleading "The product exited because of a license error". Use whenever invoking wolframscript on a non-trivial computation, when a wolframscript job dies with a "license error" despite a valid license, or when Wolfram…
cross-validate
Format a result, derivation, or numerical value for independent verification by a second model. Use when you want a cross-check on an important or contested result.
verify-citation
Confirm a paper actually exists (arXiv / Semantic Scholar / OpenAlex) before citing it. Use before writing any new citation.